SUGGESTIONS AS TO THE SCRIPTURE PROOF OF ARTICLE XXII.

I. In the very first rank may be placed the negative argument from Scripture in dealing with these subjects. When we come to details of ecclesiastical arrangements, and of the administration of the Sacraments, the silence of Scripture proves little, simply because they do not come under review. But when such questions as those noted in the present Article are raised, the silence of Scripture is conclusive. It would be simply impossible for the writers of the Epistles to have omitted directions about prayers for the dead, notices of purgatory, and invocation of saints, if these had been any part of their system. No theory of 'economy' or 'reserve' can account for so extraordinary an omission. The Epistles often touch on the state of the departed, and are, above measure, copious on the subjects and nature of prayer; yet these things are omitted precisely where no Romish divine could avoid giving them the foremost place. The inference is as strong as it is obvious. The student will see that the force of this argument lies not in the mere fact of omission (for many things are omitted in Scripture), but in the peculiar relation of what is omitted to what is mentioned and enjoined. In urging this negative argument, passages may be selected in which the nature of the subject brings out into strong relief the absence of the dogmas controverted here. This argument applies in a very high degree to the modern Roman worship of the Virgin Mary, the extravagances of which will be more or less familiar to the reader. The passages in the New Testament in which she is mentioned are so few, as to be easily collected and remembered; and the conclusion to be drawn from them, and yet more from the absolute silence of the Epistles with regard even to her name, is of the most decisive character.

II. The second mode of dealing with these subjects will be to select passages in which the state of the departed, prayer, etc., are spoken of in terms absolutely inconsistent with the Romish doctrines in question.

III. With regard to image worship, absolute prohibitions of Scripture are not wanting.

IV. The true nature of justification, and the completeness of the satisfaction made by Christ for our sins, may be shown to exclude the notion of purgatory, indulgences, and whatever else belongs to that system.

V. The mediatorial relation of Christ to His Church, and the close communion which the believer enjoys with Him, will exclude secondary mediators.

VI. The passages chiefly alleged by Romanists as favouring their views may be found discussed in Bishop Browne on this Article.

ARTICLES XXIII. AND XXXVI.

ARTICLE XXIII.

ARTICLE XXXVI.

neither hath it anything that of itself is superstitious or ungodly. And therefore whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to the Rites of that Book, since the second year of the aforenamed King Edward unto this time, or hereafter shall be consecrated or ordered according to the same Rites; we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered.

nihil habet, quod ex se sit, aut superstitiosum, aut im pium; itaque quicunque juxta ritus illius libri consecrati aut ordinati sunt, ab anno secundo prædicti regis Edwardi, usque ad hoc tempus, aut in posterum juxta eosdem ritus consecrabuntur, aut ordinabuntur, rite atque ordine, atque legitime statuimus esse et fore consecratos et ordinatos.

NOTES ON THE TEXT OF ARTICLES XXIII AND XXXVI.

In Article XXIII. the following equivalents may be noted. 'In the congregation; ' Latin, in ecclesiâ (as in Article XIX.). 'Lawfully called;' Latin, legitime vocatos. Authority; ' Latin, potestas.

In Article XXXVI. we may note the phrase 'rightly, orderly, and lawfully; ' Latin, rite, atque ordine, atque legitime." The word 'rightly,' therefore, in this place signifies correctly in respect of form and manner.

Article XXIII. is identical with the twenty-fourth of 1552. It is partly taken from the Confession of Augsburgh, which declares, No one ought to teach publicly in the congregation (ecclesia), or to administer the Sacraments, nisi rite vocatus.* Article XXXVI. was entirely recast in 1562. It takes the place of Art. XXXV. of 1552, which asserted that the second Prayer book of King Edward (Liber nuperrime traditus, &c.), together with the Ordinal, was in accordance with the Gospel, and to be received by the people.

OBSERVATIONS ON ARTICLES XXIII. AND XXXVI.

Article XXIII. is so general in its terms that it might be admitted by any body of Christians who maintain the prin

1 Art. XIV.

ciple of an order of ministers set apart for the service of the Church.

The question, therefore, which arises, and which will need. illustration from competent English sources, will be how far the twenty-third Article is interpreted or limited by the thirty-sixth, or by any other Church of England document.

Our enquiry in the first instance resolves itself into the question whether the thirty-sixth Article is meant to have simply an inclusive force, or also an exclusive force. That is, whether it means only to maintain the validity of the English mode of ordination as against objectors to the same, or also to pronounce against the validity of other modes. It seems clear that the thirty-sixth Article can have no such exclusive force for this reason. If it excludes any, it excludes all who are not consecrated or ordained according to our form, whether episcopally or not; which would prove too much. This Article therefore asserts the validity of our orders, and leaves the question of other modes of ordination untouched.

The preface to the Ordinal may at first sight be considered more exclusive. It declares that the three orders of bishops, priests, and deacons have continued from the time of the apostles; and it proceeds to order that none shall be accounted to be a lawful bishop, priest, or deacon of the Church of England who has not been ordained according to this ritual, or has not previously received episcopal ordination.

This prohibitory clause was added in 1662. It, therefore. stands as part of the more exclusive system adopted at the Restoration, and embodied in the Act of Uniformity of Charles II. Before that time, an Act of parliament, 1571, permitted men ordained otherwise than by the form of the English Church to hold benefices in England, on condition of their duly subscribing the Articles of Religion, and reading them during morning service in their own church.1

That this continued to be the practice is witnessed by the unexceptionable testimony of Bishop Cosin in a letter written in 1650, quoted in Dean Goode's 'Rule of Faith.' 2 "Therefore, if at any time a minister so ordained in these French 1 Strype's 'Annals,' B. I. c. 7. 2 Vol. ii. p. 293, 2nd ed.